From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53587) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cj8rg-00024e-RX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 13:20:42 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cj8rd-0003dj-29 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 13:20:40 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35488) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cj8rc-0003dJ-QE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 13:20:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 20:20:33 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20170301201347-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <05b271a3-4bf9-729b-d662-c9886951f26d@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170301181146-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20170301163104.GJ10160@redhat.com> <20170301185414-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <1d155a66-8806-8792-b82d-4bebabcd4971@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170301191459-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <4022b3c9-56c3-7cea-928c-9e0e7d070d90@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170301173823.GO10160@redhat.com> <20170301194704-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20170301181117.GR10160@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170301181117.GR10160@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/4] Provide support for the CUSE TPM List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: Stefan Berger , Stefan Berger , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , "SERBAN, CRISTINA" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marc-Andr=E9?= Lureau , "Xu, Quan" , "silviu.vlasceanu@gmail.com" , "hagen.lauer@huawei.com" , "SHIH, CHING C" On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 06:11:17PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 07:58:36PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:38:23PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 12:25:46PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > On 03/01/2017 12:16 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 12:12:34PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > > On 03/01/2017 12:02 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:31:04PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 06:22:45PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:50:38AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I had already proposed a linked-in version before I went to the out-of-process > > > > > > > > > > design. Anthony's concerns back then were related to the code not being trusted > > > > > > > > > > and a segfault in the code could bring down all of QEMU. That we have test > > > > > > > > > > suites running over it didn't work as an argument. Some of the test suite are > > > > > > > > > > private, though. > > > > > > > > > Given how bad the alternative is maybe we should go back to that one. > > > > > > > > > Same argument can be made for any device and we aren't making > > > > > > > > > them out of process right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIMO it's less the in-process question (modularization > > > > > > > > > of QEMU has been on the agenda since years and I don't > > > > > > > > > think anyone is against it) it's more a code control/community question. > > > > > > > > I rather disagree. Modularization of QEMU has seen few results > > > > > > > > because it is generally a hard problem to solve when you have a > > > > > > > > complex pre-existing codebase. I don't think code control has > > > > > > > > been a factor in this - as long as QEMU can clearly define its > > > > > > > > ABI/API between core & the modular pieces, it doesn't matter > > > > > > > > who owns the module. We've seen this with vhost-user which is > > > > > > > > essentially outsourcing network device backend impls to a 3rd > > > > > > > > party project. > > > > > > > And it was done precisely for community reasons. dpdk/VPP community is > > > > > > > quite large and fell funded but they just can't all grok QEMU. They > > > > > > > work for hardware vendors and do baremetal things. With the split we > > > > > > > can focus on virtualization and they can focus on moving packets around. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > QEMU's defined the vhost-user ABI/API and delegated > > > > > > > > impl to something else. > > > > > > > The vhost ABI isn't easy to maintain at all though. So I would not > > > > > > > commit to that lightly without a good reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It will be way more painful if the ABI is dictated by a 3rd party > > > > > > > library. > > > > > > Who should define it? > > > > > > > > > > > No one. Put it in same source tree with QEMU and forget ABI stability > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > You mean put the code implementing TPM 1.2 and/or TPM 2 into the QEMU tree? > > > > These are multiple thousands of lines of code each and we'll break them > > > > apart into logical chunks and review them? > > > > > > No, lets not make that mistake again - we only just got rid of the > > > libcacard smartcard library code from QEMU git. > > > > I don't mean that as an external library. As an integral part of QEMU > > adhering to our coding style etc - why not? > > Changing swtpm to the QEMU coding style is a pointless exercise - just > busy work for no functional end benefit. I'm not sure what you are saying here, I don't appreciate extra hurdles to review, it's hard enough as it is. If others don't care, good for them. > You're also tieing the code > into the QEMU release cycle, again for no tangible benefit. No need for ABI stability would be the benefit. > Conceptually > swtpm does not depend on, or require, QEMU to be useful - it can have > other non-QEMU consumers - bundling with QEMU is not helpful there. Maybe it could but it isn't. > > > I don't know what are the other options. How is depending on an ABI > > with a utility with no other users and not packaged by most distros > > good? You are calling out to a CUSE device but who's reviewing that > > code? > > If anyone is motivated enough to review the code, they can do it whether > it is in QEMU git or its own git. Pulling entire of swtpm into QEMU GIT > isn't magically going to get useful reviews done on the code. The QEMU > maintainers already have far more code to review than available review > bandwidth, and lack domain knowledge in TPM concepts. I was the only one merging TPM code so far. I don't call myself an expert. If someone steps up to do the work, is trusted by Peter to maintain it for X years and doesn't care about the extra hurdles, more power to them. > > Anyway, it all boils down to lack of reviewers. I know I am not merging > > the current implementation because I could not figure out what do qemu > > bits do without looking at the implementation. I don't want to jump > > between so many trees and coding styles. bios/qemu/linux/dpdk are > > painful enough to manage. If some other maintainer volunteers, or if > > Peter wants to merge it directly from Stefan, I won't object. > > > Regards, > Daniel > -- > |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| > |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| > |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|